Trump’s Hawkish Advisers and Iran

Trump speaks at Washington rally against the Iran deal back in September 2015. Credit: Olivier Douliery/Sipa USA/Newscom

Benjamin Friedman expects the Trump administration to be hawkish on foreign policy:

With limited time and thousands of spots to fill, presidents naturally turn to the foreign policy establishment housed in think tanks, law firms, and consultancies. These experts, who are highly interventionist and pro- alliance, regardless of party, gain considerable sway, especially when the president is inexperienced and focused elsewhere. Trump increasingly relied on Washington insiders as his campaign advanced. His defense proposals reflect that. It would be difficult for Trump to find enough non-interventionist experts to fill key security posts, if he were inclined to try. And if rumors about likely appointees are even part right, he isn’t. No one among Rudy Giuliani, Michael Mukasey, Jeff Sessions, Duncan Hunter, Jim Talent, and John Bolton seems likely to favor a turn away from military interventions and alliance commitments.

If there was much doubt about this before now, Trump’s initial picks for his National Security Adviser (Flynn) and CIA director (Pompeo) today confirm that some of the most important positions in the administration are going to rabid Iran hawks. If Giuliani gets the nod for State and Tom Cotton goes to Defense, Trump’s national security team will be even more aggressive and extremely anti-Iranian, and they would be united in their hostility to diplomacy in general and the nuclear deal in particular. That will disappoint many Trump supporters, but Trump has never been a candidate of restraint and his rhetoric over the last year and a half told us he wasn’t. Now he is proving it with his appointments.

Friedman also thinks conflict with Iran is now becoming more likely:

Trump’s election also boosts the odds of war with Iran. Like most Republicans, Trump says we should withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal. That would likely further destabilize the region and put Iran back on the path to building nuclear weapons. Most Congressional Republicans would then likely advocate bombing. Trump hasn’t explicitly agreed, but his rhetoric isn’t reassuring.

It is difficult to see why Trump would surround himself with people who are so hostile to Iran if he doesn’t share their dangerous views about Iran policy, and they seem certain to advise him to do things that not only jeopardize the nuclear deal but also potentially put the U.S. on a collision course with Iran.

Trump said repeatedly that he would back out of the Iran deal. I fully expect him to do that. Picking Gen. Flynn as his closest foreign policy adviser tells us he will follow through on his campaign promise.

A war with Iran in the next couple of years? I see that happening too. Unless Putin tells him to back off, that is.

Not withstanding his book with co-author Michael Ledeen, as Trump’s top foreign policy advisor during the campaign and prior to that Obama’s DIA chief, I don’t think Flynn is really in the hawk camp. Pompeo is there to fight ISIS I believe, and, at least in theory, CIA chief isn’t a foreign policy making position, eso It may not be very relevant to Trump thinking which I think is mainly focused on economic concerns such trade deals and growing the economy. I think the fact that people like Governor Haley, whose only experience in foreign policy is negotiating over international trade for her state, are being considered the Secretary of State position I think bears this out.

Trump supporters also have a right to expect the Trump administration will “drain the swamp”, which is to say crack down on corruption and white collar crime, just like Chris Christie “drained the swamp” in Monmouth County with his praiseworthy Operation Bid Rig.

According to the mainstream media, Jared Kushner refuses to admit that his father did anything wrong, he is soft on white collar crime, he purged Chris Christie for reasons of personal revenge, and he is the animating force behind the war monger elements within the Trump team.

Seriously, I’ve never thought the US would go to war with Iran; that there were enough sober-minded people to realize how absurd it would be. Seemed even less likely after the deal was struck. Maybe I’m wrong.

Trump will back out of the Iran deal not just because of his advisors but because as a developer he has a history of doing that and it is what we can expect. He stiffed his contractors, which is backing out of a deal, and he has declared bankruptcy several times, which is essentially leaving others holding the bag.

Those of his supporters who expect him to exercise any sense or restraint in foreign policy have been had. Likewise for those who expect him to ‘drain the swamp’. Again, just look at his record as a developer.

I’m not sure why, in comparing Trump’s campaign rhetoric to Clinton’s, you combine Iran and Palestine, other than perhaps the fact that those two (versus the others you listed: Syria, Russia, ISIS, Al-Qaeda) are the one that Israel in general and Likud in particular care [most] about.

Notwithstanding that, do you really dispute that Trump campaigned as vastly more hawkish on Iran than Clinton (who was hardly great)? Care to elaborate?

Re Israel/Palestine, certainly the Israeli right saw and sees a big difference between the two. Not that Trump isn’t fully capable of conning them too. Also interesting that AFAIK when Trump was running his mouth about allies paying for (more of) their own defense, he never mentioned Israel (or Egypt for the matter). Perhaps because he is capable of distinguishing between allies and clients (would that more people could), and only feels that the US needs to subsidize the latter (what useful US purpose, other than political signalling, the subsidies to Israel serve I really don’t know, and I would think that there’s got to be a more cost-effective way to bribe the Egyptian military than our present policy; surely the master dealmaker will come up with something).

a spencer: That list is not at all surprising. There is some hope that Trump as a business person, with strong economic ties to Russia himself, might resist the very strong urgings of his advisors. If not, it should be a fun war. We will have zero worthwhile allies.

During the Republican primaries, when all the other Republican candidates were promising to “tear up” the Iran deal on their first day in office, Trump promised to stringently enforce the deal – a less hawkish stance.

Also, during one debate Trump explained the importance of being neutral if one wished to mediate the Israeli/Palestinian dispute. Cruz and Rubio furiously attacked him for this suggestion.

These *relatively* dovish stances helped Trump win the primaries. In particular, foreign policy helped distinguish Trump from Cruz, who was promising the same immigration policies.

As Larison has documented, Hillary Clinton was (quietly) just as hawkish as Trump on these two issues.

On other issues, such as the Syrian “no-fly-zone”, “regime change”, and the relationship with Russia, Clinton’s statements were clearly hawkish while Trump’s were dovish. I think this was decisive. Many voters who told the pollsters they supported Johnson eventually voted for Trump. Why? Because Trump, when confronted in the second debate with Pence’s support for “no-fly-zones” and regime change, said “I disagree.” Those two words won him the presidency. In the home stretch, Johnson supporters switched to Trump to a greater degree than Stein supporters switched to Clinton – in large part because of their respective foreign policies.

As a result, Trump won counties which had voted for Obama against warmongers McCain and Romney.

Peace is the one policy for which Trump can claim a popular vote mandate. Although Clinton had a larger popular vote than Trump, the combined Trump/Johnson/Stein popular vote was larger than the combined Clinton/McMullin popular vote.

As a war with Iran cannot be ‘won’ in any meaningful sense, it is doomed to failure.

Much more worrisome will be the international impact. I don’t think enough people appreciate how unusual the international acceptance of our hegemony is. Generally other great powers unite against a hegemonic power, often overlooking very serious differences (Czarist Russia allying with Republican France in WW1, Soviet Russia allying with the democratic West in WW2 as recent examples).

If the United States becomes cast as some sort of rogue actor the worms could turn quickly.

Thanks very much – I had forgotten the business about Trump deviating from “tear the deal up first day in office” orthodoxy. It is all the truly great Dr Larison’s fault for his choice of illustration for this post, demonstrating what cognitive psychologists call anchoring.

It’s pretty simple. If we’re still fumbling around in the Middle East in November 2018, the GOP can kiss its majorities in Congress goodbye. If we’re still there in November 2020, they can kiss the presidency goodbye too.

Trump can play ball with interventionists all he wants, and he’ll get his ass whipped if he does. Just like he’ll get his ass whipped if doesn’t build the wall or bring those jobs back, or if he lets Wall Street criminals skate.

I voted for him. I would vote against him if he doesn’t get us the hell out of the Middle East, and I know many others who voted for him who would do likewise.

I’m definitely nervous trumps dovish teases were just that teases. drudge is headlining that Iraqis are cheering trump because they want him to isis. suggestin trump should care about this and that we should ramp up the offensive. And the talk of Bolton is downright scary. has he been right about anything??

“I’m definitely nervous trumps dovish teases were just that teases. drudge is headlining that Iraqis are cheering trump because they want him to isis.”

Well, I understand the desire to punish ISIS/ISIL. Whether we can or should do so is another matter. I fully comprehend we are responsible for their existence. But our presence with two administrations in the region has made matters worse. Even the attempt to engage in limited intervention such as Libya and Syria has had negative (devastating) results, even for those we seek to help. The Shia may be enjoying some level of power, but I doubt most are embracing the tit for tat conflicts that go on unabated.

And when that is done (if ever), the attempt to shore up the Kurds out of Iraq proper is going to a serious problem.

But as is ever the case, ISIS/ISIL doesn’t end in Iraq. And therein lies Osama Bin Laden’s greatest triumph. His singular question:

“Why doesn’t the US come out and fight me?”

Well, we did; in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Libya, in Syria, my guess is we are still invested in rendition, and globe “hit squads” on suspected enemies of the state or peace in general. I think a strategy as is engaged in due in the long run to fail. Largely because we are the outsiders and outside our element. Force only gets you so far in these complicated scenarios. And we suffer a good deal of huberous by our good intentions, assumptions about US influence of the same. But with every step we confirm that the US is making war on the Muslim world confirming Bin Laden’s contention thereby fueling Muslim’s more inclined to fight back. And if more and ore of the Muslim world decides that the greatest threat them is the US then battling those with weapons is going to be seen as a cakewalk compared to the denunciations that will ring out across mosques.

The world is a far more competitive place since the end of the cold war and while China and Russia are not enemies they are competitors. We generally consider Europe and ally en masse, but they are competitors each state with is own obligations to their citizens. There’s a reason they are not rushing to send heavy weapons into the Ukraine.

Excuse the ramble — in any event ISIS, ssve on some limited scale is going to be a problem.

I am not an outright opponent of empire. But we have a lot of lessons unlearned from empire building — it will require trashing old models of occupation.

And I too echo, the sentiments of those saying Mr. trump was elected in part for less intervention — not more, regardless of whose name in the plate — there will be push back if that is treated as a blowoff.

If we’re still fumbling around in the Middle East in November 2018, the GOP can kiss its majorities in Congress goodbye. If we’re still there in November 2020, they can kiss the presidency goodbye too.

Huh? All the evidence I see is that foreign policy doesn’t affect voting much.

Just like he’ll get his ass whipped if doesn’t build the wall or bring those jobs back, or if he lets Wall Street criminals skate.

LOL. The “Wall” is pointless. There’s a very simple, very effective means of curtailing illegal immigration: draconian penalties on employers. The business class will never allow it, and they love themselves some cheap labor.

Bring jobs back? He’s going to single-handedly reverse globalization? He’s going to win a show-down with the business class, which has happily been shipping jobs overseas for decades now?

And Wall Street? LOL. The only people who really want to take Wall Street down a few notches are all on the left/center-left, and they’d never make it into office because right-wingers would paint them as socialists. Donald won’t take on Wall Street; they’re fellow grifters, after all.